Whether I am listening to someone teach Scripture, or doing it myself, my preferred style is book by book, verse by verse, line by line. I think it helps make the most sense of Scripture, provides the overall context of passages and hard-to-understand texts, and forces teachers to speak about things that they normally might skip over and avoid.
When I was a pastor, I often quoted Isaiah 28:10-13 as proof that God’s preferred method of teaching was also line by line, precept upon precept. Also, I once wrote an entire book attempting to prove that this is how Jesus probably taught (No, the book has never been printed anywhere, or even posted on this blog, but you’ll get a summary of it in the next post or two).
But in the last three years, as I have begun to question and challenge certain elements of how we “do church,” I decided to seriously examine Isaiah 28:10-13 for the first time in my life.
I came away shocked with what I read. This verse does not prove that expository book by book teaching is God’s preferred method.
How To Translate Isaiah 28:10-13
First, it is important to recognize that there is some disagreement on how to translate verses 10, 13. Traditionally, they have been translated “precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little” or something similar to this.
This is a decent translation of the words in these verses, but the context hints that something else is going on beyond and behind the mere meaning of the words. You can get a hint of this by reading the Hebrew of these words: “Saw lesaw saw lesaw, qaw leqaw qaw leqaw, ze’ir sham ze’ir sham.” Even an English reader who does not understand Hebrew can hear how these words poetically roll off the tongue in a rhythmic and rhyming fashion.
Several scholars believe that due to the surrounding context of these verses, and what is going on in the passage, a better translation of these Hebrew words would be, “Blah blah blah, yada yada yada, same old same old” or some similar form or repetitive gibberish.
Why would some Hebrew scholars desire to translate these lines in such ways? Because of the context.
The Context of Isaiah 28:10-13
The verses surrounding Isaiah 28:10-13 are crucial to properly understanding this text. In verses 5-6, God states what He wants to do in and through Israel. He desires to bring glory and beauty to His people. He wants justice to rule and strength to prevail. But there is a problem. According to verses 7-8, the rulers, the leaders, the priests, and the prophets have all become drunkards. They have no vision and their judgment is poor. All they do is wallow in their own vomit and filth.
When Isaiah tries to get them to learn the Law of God and reform their ways, they complain in verses 9-10 that the message of Isaiah is too repetitive and basic. They mock him by saying that he repeats himself and talks gibberish. They ridicule his teaching by summarizing it with the Hebrew words above, which as indicated, could be translated in the context as “Blah blah blah. Yada yada yada. Same old same old.” They feel they have nothing to learn from Isaiah, that he repeats himself, and that his teaching is like the repetitive gibberish of babies.
How does God respond to this mocking criticism of Isaiah? In the following verses (28:11-13), God basically says,
So you claim that Isaiah speaks repetitive gibberish? Fine. I will give you gibberish. I will send the Assyrians who will speak to you in another language. I sent you Isaiah so you would have refreshment and rest, but since you refused to listen to him, I will send you a people who will bring only death and destruction. You will really not be able to understand them. Their speech will truly sound like ‘Blah blah blah. Yada yada yada.’
Isaiah 28:10-13 and our Preaching Practice
Do these verses provide a good explanation of how God wants His Scriptures to be taught? Not even close. The statement about “precept upon precept, line upon line” is first of all a mocking statement by drunkards about the teaching of Isaiah, and then becomes a mocking statement by God as He turns their words back upon them. God tells them that if they don’t like what Isaiah says, they really won’t like what they hear from the Assyrians.
There is almost nothing in this text about how to preach and teach the Word of God. If there is anything here at all, we might be able to glimpse Isaiah’s teaching method behind the mocking words of the leaders. It seems that Isaiah taught the same thing over and over and over in very simple words and ideas to the drunken leaders of Israel in hopes that through repetition and simplicity, they might understand his words and repent of their ways.
But beyond that, this passage says nothing about God’s approved method for preaching and teaching.
Excellent Jeremy!! I just had to re-post.
Thanks David! Where did you re-post it? I would like to interact with anybody who comments on it there.
I re-posted here http://javaman56.wordpress.com/ there are a couple of other of yours as well as few other items you might like.
TGBTG
Where did you get your resource for this? Very good btw!
Some Scripture lines stand on their own. Others are part of a larger concept and should be taught that way. I prefer book by book. When we try and place each line on it’s own, we’re forcing a false constraint on God’s word.
In a lot of ways, I see the line by line, and even homilitic approach as harmful. The Word of God is complex, deep and spiritual. When we apply scholarly techniques to it’s interpretation and delivery, we often distort ot and render it of no effect.
Steve,
Yes, the Bible is a magnificent book, full of deep, spiritual truths. We must make sure that our teaching treats it with the respect it deserves.
Amen!
Totally Agree!
The Word of God is Alive (Living) and Active!
The Holy Spirit , the Spirit of Truth will interpret God’s Word from God’s perspective!
Brother Jeremy,
Great exegetics! (heh, heh) Your reference to how Isaiah’s preaching/teaching/PROPHESYING might have been reminds me of “Paul’s” wording: “It is not tedious for me to remind you of these things…”.
Keep on keeping on!
M.
Yep, sometimes repetition is good, especially when the lesson has not been learned or put into practice.
We need to teach both sides, we need to teach the controversy. The way to do that is to find all of the contradictions in the bible and then try to explain them away as if they made sense.
I think you are speaking sarcastically? Ha ha! It’s a good point you make. I often think the difficult sections of the Bible are what make it interesting. By explaining them away, we make Scripture bland and dull.
I prefer the “Calvary Chapel” method to preaching also. That’s what I did, and that’s how I read the Bible, so to me it make sense. Making a sermon around 1 verse was popular in the 18th and 19th centuries, but I know the apostles proved their points by grabbing verses haphazardly. But I know Jews had the scriptured memorized so THEY knew the context.
I love the Calvary Chapel approach also. I love the sermons by Chuck Smith and Jon Courson.
This has recently occured to me as I’ve been searching the scriptures lately. Did you ever see a hologram? Those 3-D looking pictures? Well, if you just take the papers w/o looking at it at the right angle, you’ll notice that it’s a picture that looks like it’ s a puzzle piece broken apart..bbut basically it’s 2 or 3 pictures all spread out on 1 piece of paper and looking at it the right way, you see it the way you’re supposed to see it. I take that verse as describing just that. The truth is spread throughout the entire Bible, it’s not just in one sentence. You have to look at it through the Holy Spirit or it will be a bunch of disjointed sentences that don’t mean anything. “line by line, precept by precept, here a little, there a little”
Interesting idea. There certainly are truths in one passage and one verse, but for the whole picture, we need to see it from all angles.
Disagree. The religious leaders who mock the prophet with the childish sounding rhymes mock him because they believe that they are above it. That they don’t need to learn about the truth about their own circumstance, about how God works in their life by putting into practice what the prophet (as God’s spokesman) is teaching. They want some big splashy teaching, like for instance – a course in miracles, rather than putting into practice in very practical ways with the people around them what the Isaiah says God requires (i.e. – love, patience, prayer, meditation, hopefulness, justice, etc).
There is no getting around it. They must study to show themselves a workman not ashamed, just like everyone else, because you see – God will not be mocked. And as we build in our own lives upon what God has revealed to our hearts, line upon line, here a little, there a little, God will only then reveal a little more about who we really are and how we are connected to God and to all that is around us. As usual, God will even use the words of those who are leading less than exemplary lives to reveal something of the truth to the rest of us.
Yes, I agree to some extent with what you are saying, especially that teachers much study to show themselves approved, and that big flashy shows are popular, but really don’t teach anyone the Word of God.
the depths of God’s Word are clearly present with line by line, verse by verse, sequential Bible teaching/preaching~it forces the teacher/preacher to study harder & it is a wonderful joy to receive such Biblical teaching!
Well, yes. That is my preferred method of teaching and preaching, and the only way I do it. However, I have heard it said that this method is the “only” way to preach, and is the “biblical” way to preach. I am not so sure I could go that far…
I agree that precept upon precept and line upon line is just what it means that God wants us to teach and preach his word just like that line upon line and precept upon precept explaining what the scriptures means so that people can understand and giving them a little hear and there because you might give them more than they can comprehend.
Lula J.
November, 14, 2017
I agree, there is no specific way. I have been in churches that taught both topical and line by line; I learned and grew in both. Here is how I see it. When we read a letter or book, it is written word by word, line by line, chapter by chapter and when we get to the end, we hope to have the meaning that the author intended us to have. God is the author of the bible and I find it much harder to take things out of context if we read and study a book line by line and chapter by chapter. I feel that is what you did when you explained your message of Isaiah 28 above. To read a verse, it can be taken many ways, but in context we are more likely to receive the intended message. Just my two cents.
That is a valuable two cents! I like your balanced approach. The contextual study of Scripture is so important, and the more context we can get the better, so this is partly why we must be life-long students of Scripture.
Isaiah 28-10 seems insignificant in the scheme of things but is anything but…. This verse is probably the most powerful and skipped over verse in the Bible and and is LITERALLY “THE KEYS TO OPEN IT” and ties the Old and New Testament together as well. GOD’S word is not supposed to be interpreted but rather taken literally, but you cannot read one verse and take it literally. One verse or one book put together with another verse or another book from a different place in the Bible that talks about the same thing, or things gives full understanding! Need proof? The book of Daniel (Old Testament) and Revelation (New Testament) read both and now you have LITERAL MEANING, FULLNESS AND UNDERSTANDING because it’s the same thing from multiple angles.
Well, Yes. Scripture interprets Scripture. Yet even those who follow this guideline do not always agree on what Scripture means.
Iv noticed that a lot of people quote the first part but omit “here a little their a little” which is as important if not more so.my understanding is that not all can be found in one place,. The bereans, surched the scripture.here is an example, in John 3 thar are 2 births mentioned, a birth produces a body, we do not find the 2 body’s produced by these births in john3 we do find them over in 1 Corn15:35-55 a natural and spirit body’s.yes ,iv headed that the two births in John 3 are sembolic, but thar many problems with that interpretation, 1.if the water birth is sembolic of babtizem n babtizem sembolic of born again, then why wud Jesus tell the thief on the cross, he wud see him in the kingdom? The thief was not baptized thar for he cud not have been born again. Here a little that a little. Thar are many other scripture relevant to the born again subject that are found ,here a little and thar.
You might want to rethink what you what you have published here and consider what the word drunkards mean and who were the drunkards of Ephriam and how the people got to be in that state. What was the wine of which they were drinking? Then we get to verse nine…”Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.” Were the people drinking milk shakes or were they ready for the real “meat” of Gods word?
Then staying within context we read verses 11 and 12 …”11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.” Have you considered what the “rest” is??? It is extremely important!!!
Then finally we get to verse 13….13 But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
Now ask yourself what was it that caused them to go, fall backward and be broken, snared, and taken? Was it something in the word of GOD? And….where did they go when they fell backward…how were they broken? Snared? and where were they taken???
When you figure out the answers to these questions you will realize the meaning of this chapter.
Amazing! A preacher preaches according to a mistaken concept for years.
I’m at the opinion that that is exactly how Isaiah was instructing them and were mocking them for that. And to them it was gibberish as in what you get in the cartoons of Charlie brown when the adults are speaking and to Charlie brown and his friends it was all gibberish.
You have made one massive mis-interpretation in the text. You assume the text is speaking of Isaiah yet Isaiah makes it clear that this is a future reality not a present one. He is not saying that this is what they say to me but what they will say to the one that the Lord sends. It is speaking of the Messiah and the time when, “For by people of strange lips and with a foreign tongue the Lord will speak to this people,”(Isaiah 28:11, ESV). In other words there will be a time when non-Jews will teach the Jews with foreign tongues and using a teaching style of preaching line upon line and precept upon precept. It is not talking about how they described Isaiah as you assert in your interpretation of the text.
Please understand I do not think that non-critical preaching is what Isaiah is referencing here. I understand the critique of the 18th and 19th century that seemed to be based around wild assertions found in a text taken out of context. What I am saying is that we must, as Paul put it, “not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God.”(Acts 20:27b ESV) This is preaching the whole council of Scripture and thus not backing down from text that we do not wish to deal with simply because they are hard. I believe if we do not deal with all Scripture we do a disservice to those we have been called to preach to.
Thank you so much for bringing out the truth.
It appears as though the way Isaiah was teaching was line upon line. This is how he was teaching. You even say so. Your argument then turns to God having the Assyrians teach them things they could’nt understand. So it appears that how Isaiah was originally teaching (line upon line), was correct, even though they mocked it. Help me understand if that’s not what you are saying. Thank you!